Pronoy Kumar Sanyal Vs. Beni Madhav Sanyal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5375 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5375 of 2000)
Petitioner: Pronoy Kumar Sanyal
Respondent: Beni Madhav Sanyal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5375 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5375 of 2000)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 16, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW/ PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 115 – Revision – Amendment of plaint – Question of limitation arising – High Court directing such question to be considered at the time of disposal of suit. Held; that was not correct approach. Question of limitation should have been considered
at that very stage. Orders set aside and revision restored to the High Court.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In the order under challenge, the High Court was considering the validity of an order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment of the plaint by the respondent before us. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner before us, submitted to the High Court that the question of limitation arose and the High Court said, “At this stage, question of limitation need not be gone into. At the time of disposal of the suit, such question may be raised by the petitioner…….”. We are of the view that this is not the correct approach. The High Court should have considered at this stage whether the amendment of the plaint that was sought, was barred by time. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order under challenge and to restore to the High Court the civil revision application (C.O. No. 414 of 1999) to be heard and disposed of afresh, bearing in mind what we have said above.
3. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.
4. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the order under challenge, the High Court was considering the validity of an order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment of the plaint by the respondent before us. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner before us, submitted to the High Court that the question of limitation arose and the High Court said, “At this stage, question of limitation need not be gone into. At the time of disposal of the suit, such question may be raised by the petitioner…….”. We are of the view that this is not the correct approach. The High Court should have considered at this stage whether the amendment of the plaint that was sought, was barred by time. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order under challenge and to restore to the High Court the civil revision application (C.O. No. 414 of 1999) to be heard and disposed of afresh, bearing in mind what we have said above.
3. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.
4. No order as to costs.
